engine oil temp sensor

[Dan M]

More Hair Splitting:

EUREKA!!!!!

The GM sensor fits the existing wire harness, right?

 

GM has a pig-tail readily available

[Guest ratchethack]

SQUARE WHEEL EXPRESS UPDATE

 

 

‘Round and ‘round we go, and where we stop – Nobody knows. . .

 

Since CONTINUAL REPETITION appears to be such an increasingly necessary – and at the same time sorely neglected! – requirement here with each and every fun-packed episode of late – and before we get the Great Wallopping Group Consensus Square Wheel o’ Fortune Clusterfarge cranked up to fever pitch again – ain’t this fun? – A few REMINDERS by way of continuing observations on the increasingly astonishing (and increasingly hilarious) track record of this here thread:

 

“Those who will not read have no advantage over those who cannot read.”

 

- Samuel Clemens, author, essayist, humorist

 

“Those who will not learn have no advantage over those who cannot learn.”

 

- Cdr. Hatchracket, incorrigible road geez, bane of fools and popular delusions

 

By recent consensus of several Forum resident Rhodes Scholar thermodynamics experts, with their vast hands-on experience, and their great depth of knowledge and understanding of applied heat flow analysis built upon extensive testing of OE Guzzi and replacement head temp sensors and holders – I’ve repeatedly been informed here, without any uncertainty about it, of two remarkable things that I never knew before:

 

1. My approach to all the head temp sensor experimenting I’ve done and reported here over the past 10 weeks has been ALL WRONG!

 

Apparently, the preposterous hands-on observations I’ve brought here whilst experimenting with heat sink, variable resistor, 3 different sensor holders, and both OE and low mass GM replacement sensors, along with the lessons learned thereby, oughtta be pilloried, peed on, tarred and feathered, and run outta town on a rail – not to mention the same treatment for the one who drug ‘em in here. . . and the horse I rode in on! . . .

 

I can’t help but conclude from the truly remarkable, and um, peculiarly sustained insurgency against wot I’ve been posting here – with extraordinarily prolific, yet empty ridicule, but no legitimate challenge wotsoever on either the facts or the merit (or lack thereof) of my observations or experimenting – that there’s been a persistent perception of some kind of a DANGEROUS THREAT that I've apparently foisted here somewhere in all of this, according to a certain few. . .

 

It’s a freakin’ temperature sensor, f’er cryin’ out loud! NONE of the braying donkeys have ANY experience with ANYTHING I’ve done here! ZERO. And yet, they're still spewing endless, mindless critiques about that which they have little to ZIP comprehension. Have these people lost their minds?? By the sheer magnitude of the offense taken, you’d think I’d been steadily exposing the private intimate memoirs of their wives in their libertine days, replete with photos en flagrante delicto. . .

 

2. Previously unbeknownst to Yours Truly, according to the unsolicited and apparently 100% unwarranted professional diagnosis proffered here, THERE’S SOMETHING WRONG with my Guzzi!

There is something . . . wrong with your bike.

. . .Eventually, you will find the real problem. A cheap start would be to run some Redline Fuel Injection cleaner through it. I'd also look at your valves and guides.

So imagine my “surprise” today, when not only did the faithful ol’ mountain sled actually fire up this morning (with the usual <3 sec. cranking), but it actually took me (again) on yet another of countless favorite back-country loops. And once again, as always, and strangely enough, Part II, the Guzzi didn’t skip a beat, nor fail to run as flawlessly as might ever be expected:

 

42 MPG today, ambient temps ~55-60°F, just after a rain – overcast, a little drizzly above 3000 ft., got stuck behind multiple horse trailers, but all things considered, not a bad back-country ride. All 155.9 miles back road, no slab. No trace of former low RPM head temp sensor body heat soak hot lean-burn feedback loop symptoms when given multiple opportunities to show it's bad self, as it would have with the OE sensor – regardless of air gap or thermo-compound – the latter case having been severe enough to make the bike unrideable without application of offsetting experimental passive and active controls – heat sink and variable resistor – as noted in detail previously.

 

 

Imagine the above brass stud in 100% copper with a 5 mm air gap, and you’ve got the sensor config as road tested today.

 

Evidently, throughout my 10 weeks of experimenting that eventually led me to trade out the 1.4 oz. OE head temp sensor/holder for a 1 g. GM/NAPA Echlin low mass sensor/holder replacement, as noted previously, I STILL haven’t yet discovered “the real problem”. . . Where, oh where, could "THE REAL PROBLEM" be??

 

How much time and effort d’you figure OJ spent on private investigations searching for “the real killer”?? I reckon the time and effort I’ll be dedicating to chasing down “the real problem” will be about the same.

 

Could it be that the only reason my Guzzi is (still) able to run so flawlessly under all conditions on the road (see 8-point checklist in post #681), and on top of this, deliver the best mileage it’s ever recorded at the same time under far less than ideal conditions – is that "THERE’S SOMETHING WRONG" with it??

 

Why, wotever it is that’s "WRONG WITH IT", I reckon if I ever DID find out, next thing I oughtta do is see if I could aggravate “THE PROBLEM” to make it worse!?!?

 

Such baffling and perplexing Q’s as these remain -- and o’ course, enquiring minds. . . (well, you know). . .

 

NEXT: Thermo-compound testing with above setup. Expectations not optimistic, as noted above, but I just gotta know for sure.

 

Will advise (Part XVII).

 

 

FUN REFERENCES!

 

Thermal conductivity @ 68°F

 

copper -- 223 BTU/(hr-ft-°F)

aluminum -- 118 BTU/(hr-ft-°F)

Copper brass (70% Cu, 30% Zi) -- 64 BTU/(hr-ft-°F)

 

SOURCE: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-...tals-d_858.html

[dlaing]

snip

So imagine my “surprise” today, when not only did the faithful ol’ mountain sled actually fire up this morning (with the usual

put some dry ice on the sensor for ten minutes before starting and I'll bet you'll get the cranking down to

 

snip

42 MPG today, ambient temps ~55-60°F, just after a rain – overcast, a little drizzly above 3000 ft., got stuck behind multiple horse trailers, but all things considered, not a bad back-country ride. All 155.9 miles back road, no slab. No trace of former head temp sensor body heat soak hot lean-burn feedback loop symptoms when given multiple opportunities to show it's bad self, as it would have with the OE sensor – regardless of air gap or thermo-compound – the latter case having been severe enough to make the bike unrideable without application of offsetting experimental controls – heat sink and variable resistor – as noted in detail previously.

Dude! is this a reading comprehension test or are you baiting us?

I swear you said you had no problem with the OE sensor with air gap, but now you are saying you did have a problem.

Do I win the prize for actually reading through your mega-posts?

 

snip

 

Imagine the above brass stud in 100% copper with a 5 mm air gap, and you’ve got the sensor config as tested today.

 

Congratulations!

That is great news.

Despite my critique and nit-picky analysis, I do appreciate what you have discovered!

Thank You!

 

 

snip

 

Evidently, throughout my 10 weeks of experimenting that eventually led me to trade out the 1.4 oz. OE head temp sensor/holder for a 1 g. GM/NAPA Echlin low mass sensor/holder replacement, as noted previously, I STILL haven’t yet discovered “the real problem”. . . Where, oh where, could it be??

 

How much time and effort d’you figure OJ spent on private investigations searching for “the real killer”?? I reckon the time and effort I’ll be dedicating to chasing “the real problem” will be about the same.

 

Could it be that the only reason my Guzzi is (still) able to run so flawlessly under all conditions on the road (see 8-point checklist in post #681), and on top of this, deliver the best mileage it’s ever recorded at the same time under far less than ideal conditions – is that THERE’S SOMETHING WRONG with it??

 

Why, wotever it is that’s WRONG WITH IT, I reckon if I ever DID find out, next thing I oughtta do is see if I could aggravate “THE PROBLEM” to make it worse!?!? With "problems" like these, I reckon my Guzzi has it pretty good. . .

 

'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice.

'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'

--Lewis Carroll

 

 

snip

 

Such baffling and perplexing Q’s as these remain -- and o’ course, enquiring minds. . . (well, you know). . .

 

NEXT: Thermo-compound testing with above setup. Expectations not optimistic, as noted above, but I just gotta know for sure.

 

Will advise (Part XVII).

To give it a fair shot, I'd recommend you minimize the gap before filling with thermo-compound, you know conductivity, inertia and all.

Looking forward to the result!

But still I think you should just switch your Guzzi CHTS with your Guzzi ATS.

[dlaing]

FWIW $20 on eBay will buy an air temp sensor that looks like a perfect cross ref for the V11 AIR temperature sensor :

Ducati Air Temperature Sensor 748 916 996 749 999 848

[Guest ratchethack]

Dude! is this a reading comprehension test or are you baiting us?

I swear you said you had no problem with the OE sensor with air gap, but now you are saying you did have a problem.

Do I win the prize for actually reading through your mega-posts?

Yeah, it's a test, Dave. You fail, having parrotted someone else nearly word for word. You get the Great Wallopping Less Than Honorable Mention for continuing to copy mistakes -- after they’ve already been corrected (multiple times):

 

“Those who will not read have no advantage over those who cannot read.”

 

- Samuel Clemens, author, essayist, humorist

 

“Those who will not learn have no advantage over those who cannot learn.”

 

- Cdr. Hatchracket, incorrigible road geez, bane of fools and popular delusions

 

After an 8 month thread "hiatus", I'd re-opened this thread Jan 25 2009, 03:06 AM'.

 

First explanation:

Ideally, I'd be dynotuning a new map with as direct thermal connection between head and sensor as possible. If the bike actually ran anything approaching poorly as is (with the exception of a few niggling nits, by all objective measures it runs perfectly with the OE sensor holder without thermal conductive paste), I'd have re-mapped it long ago.

First reminder:

. . . since it runs so magnificently without me mucking with it a-tall). . .

2nd reminder:

Lacking a motor that exhibits anything close to undesirable running characteristics from the jump, with the OE sensor/holder exactly as pristine and unsullied by thermo-smegma as it was boated across the blue from Como,

3rd reminder:

My map is a PC III map. Unlike many other maps, apparently, this particular map runs perfectly acceptably under all conditions of startup and operation on the road with the plastic holder/sensor -- WITHOUT any thermo-paste and a OE air gap of ~.015".

4th reminder:

As noted previously, my Guzzi with it's current PC III map runs more than acceptably well with considerable "slop" in the accuracy of the temperature read when there's no direct thermo connection between plastic holder base and sensor tip via thermo-paste.

And then, in direct response to our CLAIRVOYANT, with some surprise at his inability to have noticed ALL the above, the 5th reminder with full re-explanation:

Greg, I've covered all of this before many times in this thread, but to repeat (as in, repeat AGAIN):

 

I'm NOT chasing a solution to a problem here, as I've made it very clear to point out, not only up front, but many times throughout my posts since I resurrected this old thread. I'm merely experimenting here. . . .

 

(Again) I have no "problem" to solve. (Again) I wouldn't even think about this stuff in better riding weather.

 

(Again) My Guzzi runs better than perfectly satisfactorily with the OE sensor/holder and no thermo-paste, and, though I've already learned enough to encourage further experimentation, if I learn nothing more of value that I can EVER apply to my Guzzi, well then -- I'll happily put away the experimenting, go back to my OE setup without any thermo-goop, and be happy as a clam, possibly in possession of a better understanding of how the cyl head thermo sensor works.

 

(Again) As I think I've already repeated at least three times lately: Of course the ideal way to solve "problems" with mapping that arise from cylinder heat temp monitoring would be to establish as direct a thermal connection between cylinder head and sensor as possible (add thermo-paste), AND THEN CREATE A NEW MAP based on the more accurate temp read.

 

I'm not doing that. Why not? (Again) In my own case, I consider my map as good a match to my setup as I'm possibly ever likely to achieve, unless or until I make engine/intake/exhaust config changes, of which none are planned.

And again, on the subject of not paying attention to what one's responding to:

I knew I was not hallucinating. You still think it impossible for someone to think there was a problem and that you were experimenting in effort to correct it?

Yep, after all the care and repetition I went to to explain, re-explain, and re-re-re-. . . etc. up front and throughout -- Without much of any Q a-tall, I'd say downright Impossible -- assuming you had a sincere interest in wot you were responding to, and that you therefore paid much've any medium-grade level of attention to it, that is.

 

Now if that's an unacceptable, or somehow unfair ASSUMPTION on my part -- all bets 'r off.

6th reminder:

Per multiple previous posts, I HAD NO REAL “PROBLEM” TO SOLVE here, unless very occasional slight hot over-lean symptoms at and off idle and very occasional pinging (detonation) after hard riding in hot weather be considered "problems", which I'd never considered either to be. If I had, I’d have re-mapped 6 years ago. But since my “library” PC III map has always delivered far better than “acceptable” performance under all conditions of operation without meddling with the OE plastic sensor/holder a-tall, I ain’t fixin’ wot I figure ain’t broke by replacing the map.

Fortunately, my experiments exposed the heretofore poorly understood shortcomings of the OE sensor. When I fully understood what those shortcomings were, I replaced it with something without ANY of those shortcomings -- as evidenced by the superior mileage it delivers, while eliminating a couple of "nits" (THAT FOR 6 YEARS, I NEVER CONSIDERED ANYTHING CLOSE TO "PROBLEMS") mentioned above -- as documented in detail in previous posts.

 

NO PROBLEMO.

 

Capice?

 

. . .[sigh]. . .

 

But now I tire of the 4th generation redundancy of repeating the repetition of the repetition. . .

 

It's a PERFECT riding day today, the open road beckons once again, and I just gotta go. . .

[Greg Field]

All that, and you're back to where you began: A bike with no running problems.

 

I congratulate you on your persistence.

[GuzziMoto]

[dlaing]

42 MPG today, ambient temps ~55-60°F, just after a rain – overcast, a little drizzly above 3000 ft., got stuck behind multiple horse trailers, but all things considered, not a bad back-country ride. All 155.9 miles back road, no slab. No trace of former head temp sensor body heat soak hot lean-burn feedback loop symptoms when given multiple opportunities to show it's bad self, as it would have with the OE sensor – regardless of air gap or thermo-compound – the latter case having been severe enough to make the bike unrideable without application of offsetting experimental controls – heat sink and variable resistor – as noted in detail previously.

 

explanation 1

Ideally, I'd be dynotuning a new map with as direct thermal connection between head and sensor as possible. If the bike actually ran anything approaching poorly as is (with the exception of a few niggling nits, by all objective measures it runs perfectly with the OE sensor holder without thermal conductive paste), I'd have re-mapped it long ago.

explanation 6

I’ve arrived at the above strictly as an academic exercise. Per multiple previous posts, I HAD NO REAL “PROBLEM” TO SOLVE here, unless very occasional slight hot over-lean symptoms at and off idle and very occasional pinging (detonation) after hard riding in hot weather be considered "problems", which I'd never considered either to be.

 

You cured no problem, and the bike now runs better than perfectly.

And those of us that don't read with perfect comprehension are the ones with reading comprehension symptoms problems.

[dlaing]

All that, and you're back to where you began: A bike with no running problems.

 

I congratulate you on your persistence.

No, now it runs BETTER than perfectly!

[emry]

Lets be sure and post our findings on all of the other brand's forums. Just to let them know all of their engineers have been incorrectly specing sensors also.

 

What if we just swap our air temp sensor and head "whatever" sensors around??? Maybe they just got them mixed up on the ass line like the seat spring / choke spring.

[gavo]

Amazing never have so many been entertained by so few for so little gain. sure are a lot of OCD people out there

[dlaing]

Lets be sure and post our findings on all of the other brand's forums. Just to let them know all of their engineers have been incorrectly specing sensors also.

 

What if we just swap our air temp sensor and head "whatever" sensors around??? Maybe they just got them mixed up on the ass line like the seat spring / choke spring.

LOL!

see my post:

EUREKA!

http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?...mp;#entry157942

[dlaing]

I've found it very hard to find thermal diffusivity numbers of all 4 metals under my current consideration online for comparison purposes. If you find an orignial, verifiable source -- please advise.

I found a Google Book

http://books.google.com/books?id=KmeC6b9hz...num=8#PPA720,M1

 

From what they say there, your assumption that the higher number is preferred is correct.

Silver 149 x 10 to the sixth

Gold 127 x 10 to the sixth

Copper 113 x 10 to the sixth

Aluminum 97.5 x 10 to the sixth

Iron 22.8 x 10 to the sixth

Mea Culpa!

I am surprised that a cc of air has far less diffusivity than a cc of metal!

And I am surprised that the much more dense Gold has better diffusivity.

So, you are correct, the copper has the better diffusivity, but I still suspect if the brass sensor holder was re-done in Aluminum it would have better thermal inertia qualities than copper, due to the shape and the lower mass of aluminum, but that ain't gonnna get proven on this forum...

In either case we can agree the brass is the worst choice of brass, copper and aluminum, with regards to thermal inertia and diffusivity, and we can agree that reducing the mass helps.

[Dan M]

I found a Google Book

http://books.google.com/books?id=KmeC6b9hz...num=8#PPA720,M1

 

From what they say there, your assumption that the higher number is preferred is correct.

Silver 149 x 10 to the sixth

Gold 127 x 10 to the sixth

Copper 113 x 10 to the sixth

Aluminum 97.5 x 10 to the sixth

Iron 22.8 x 10 to the sixth

Mea Culpa!

I am surprised that a cc of air has far less diffusivity than a cc of metal!

And I am surprised that the much more dense Gold has better diffusivity.

So, you are correct, the copper has the better diffusivity, but I still suspect if the brass sensor holder was re-done in Aluminum it would have better thermal inertia qualities than copper, due to the shape and the lower mass of aluminum, but that ain't gonnna get proven on this forum...

In either case we can agree the brass is the worst choice of brass, copper and aluminum, with regards to thermal inertia and diffusivity, and we can agree that reducing the mass helps.

 

 

 

I'll assume that you will use a silver stud and drill a hole through the center to make it hollow, eh?

[dlaing]

I'll assume that you will use a silver stud and drill a hole through the center to make it hollow, eh?

Hollowed out and filled with diamond powder, then gold plated for corrosion resistance, but leave an air gap just to defeat the whole exercise.

But seriously, I am having trouble grasping the air gaps importance for anything other than getting the sensor output to match the engineers intentions, or to keep the plastic from heat damage in Ratchet's setup.

Using a copper stud, does having the low diffusivity of air combined with the low mass of air somehow give it BETTER properties that an alumimum stud and less or no air gap would not have(ASSUMING air gaps are set to same maximum temperature at the sensor)? That must be spitting hairs. Forget I asked...